Bereaved Families of Deceased Soldiers "Demand Compensation"... Supreme Court Says "If No Explicit Refusal, Lawsuit Must Be Refiled"

[Asia Economy Reporter Baek Kyunghwan] The bereaved family of a son who died during military service, who did not receive the death compensation, filed a lawsuit against the state, but the Supreme Court overturned and remanded the case, stating that it was not a 'proper form of lawsuit.' The reason is that the veterans affairs authorities did not explicitly state that they would not pay the death compensation, so the lawsuit itself was not valid.

On the 29th, the Supreme Court's 3rd Division (Presiding Justice Kim Jae-hyung) announced that it overturned the lower court's partial ruling in favor of plaintiff A, the bereaved family of a deceased soldier, in the lawsuit to confirm the invalidity of the suspension of veterans benefits payment, and sent the case back to the Seoul High Court.

A's son enlisted in the military in April 2013 and died by suicide. A filed a lawsuit against the state under the State Compensation Act, claiming that the incident occurred due to negligence in command and management by unit officers and senior soldiers, and received compensation of about 121 million won through a final court ruling.

Afterwards, A also claimed the death compensation, but it was rejected on the grounds that he had already received state compensation exceeding the amount of the death compensation. The death compensation under the Military Pension Act was about 108 million won, but A had already received state compensation exceeding this amount.

The first and second trial courts ruled in favor of A. The first trial court judged that the 'passive damage compensation' of about 97 million won, which is compensation paid when death occurs due to illegal acts by other soldiers during official duties, is the same type of benefit as the death compensation and the overlapping amount should be deducted, but there is no need to deduct 'active damage compensation' such as medical expenses or consolation money. The second trial court made the same judgment.

However, the Supreme Court found a misunderstanding in the legal judgment and decided that the case should be retried. The court stated, "Since the Gyeonggi Southern Veterans Affairs Office, which received the claim for death compensation payment, did not make a payment decision, it is difficult to consider that a specific right to death compensation under the former Military Pension Act has arisen," and sent the case back.

In other words, it means that after confirming the illegality of inaction through a 'lawsuit to confirm illegality of nonfeasance' against the veterans affairs office that did not take action, the veterans affairs office should have made a refusal decision, and then a lawsuit against the state for the refusal decision should have been filed. The Supreme Court ruling stated, "The lower court should have exercised its right to request clarification on whether to change this case from a party lawsuit to an appeal lawsuit so that A could have a proper form of lawsuit," and "The lower court erred by assuming the lawsuit was proper as a party lawsuit and made a judgment that affected the ruling."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.